What a shame!

[thamiz]

Rajan: The major problem is that still arranged marriages dominate in our culture. OK , if you think premarital sex is not wrong, then we should eradicate "arranged marriage" between "strangers". We are not doing that!

When people still want to stick to arranged marriages, you want to allow premarital sex (considering that is harmless), then they should at least marry one of the partners with whom they fell in love and slept with. That is NOT happening either.

Premarital sex is for just practising sex and later, marrying a stranger with whom you never slept with, is what making things more complicated and awkward in our culture than the western lifestyle.

Either stop premarital sex as what we believe as good for our arranged marriage culture or stop arranged marriage completely, and choose your partner by loving and sleeping with. But what has been happening is அரைக்கிணறு தாண்டுதல்! அதான் பிரச்சினையே.

தமிழ் கல்யாணம்னு இன்னும் மாட்ரிமோனி அப்புறம் குலம் கோத்ரம்னு பார்த்து ஏன் ஹைலி எஜுக்கேட்டெட் மக்களும் செய்றாங்க?

Caste system and marrying within the same caste still dominates in our culture! Then how are you going to allow premarital sex in such a setting?

[rajraj]

தமிழ் கல்யாணம்னு இன்னும் மாட்ரிமோனி அப்புறம் குலம் கோத்ரம்னு பார்த்து ஏன் ஹைலி எஜுக்கேட்டெட் மக்களும் செய்றாங்க?

Caste system and marrying within the same caste still dominates in our culture!

And promotes in-breeding !

[r2tchasi]

Even in her case, it was "enticement" not "adultery." Some bored lawyer must have looked up the archaic law. Anyway as you are aware the case just fizzled out and there were talks of repealiing this colonial law.

It was her husband who filed the caselah. It was more to shame the parties involved rather than to get justice. What justice can you get anyway? - Adultery is morally wrong fullstop Laws aren't there to criminalise adultery. It is there to implicate that adultery is wrong.
Yup, the case is no longer the case, NOV.

Kushboo's statement: 'Some Tamil women whom I know are indulging in premarital sex.'

Next come the lawsuits.

Meaning: It is a crime to know people who are into premarital sex (or any other immoral activities)?

[groucho070]

As long as nobody gets hurt

What if I feel "hurt" by moral outrage ?

Apart from physical hurt, causing psychological trauma (eg. threats, ) is a punishable offence - we'd be ready agree with that.

Yes, most lawmakers all over the world have established that. It's a multi-billion dollar industry in the US.

What about 'public decency' - that ever changing cultural thing where standards are progressively 'lowered'.

One day my mom said, she saw this old movie with Anuradha doing cabaret dancing, and she said, "ippo ulla arai-kurai dress podura heroines-e thevalam pola irukku". Is it about clothing? Behavioiur? Smooching your girlfriend, gay friend or wife in public is norm in Singapore, can be charged as public indecency in Malaysia if confronted by sexually surpressed cop. Singaporean authorities don't give a damn, they are more concerned about making sure the people have good life and vote for the ruling party again the next election.

How would one react ? The streaker is a regular in these arguments - and I am surprised he hasn't made an appearance thus far.

During 1974 Oscar, the presenter David Niven was suddenly interrupted by a Streaker who ran across the stage. Niven: " "Isn't it fascinating to think, that probably the only laugh that man will ever get in his life, is by stripping off and showing his shortcomings?"

And this is my favourite: what about "Hurting religious sentiments" - there we may get slightly cat-on-the-wall. Responses will range from "it's a free country, grow some skin" to "தவிர்த்திருக்கலாம்", "வருத்தத்துக்குரியது" to "கண்டனத்துக்குரியது".

No comments from someone who is not in a free country. Till today I am confused as to Malaysia is a Islamic country or not.

In many places the charges center around 'likely to incite violence'.

Reasons why bad big budget movies like Minority Report get made.

Note: this is not necessarily linked to actual acts of violence, but presumption that it may lead to. That means the incitability of the people is also taken into account, isn't it ?!

The bad guy in Under Siege 2: "Assumption is mother of all f***ups". Who knows? Who can tell? What authority do you have to presume such act will happen? What is authority? The guy who urinated his territory?

So as people become more balanced (or 'permissive' based on how one sees it !) previous offences no longer are offences ! Rather than being set in stone on these issues, the law changes - which can be understandably unsettling. We law as the cornerstone with reference to which society operates but in many cases there is a feedback loop.

Well said There will always be evolution, physical, psychological, cultural, etc.

[pavalamani pragasam]

That reminds me of one important evolution I see: when I was a kid my dad used to describe cultural difference by quoting laughingly,'my children and your children and our children are playing together'. In the past two generations our young men and women have evolved into more shrewd beings recognising children factor as nuisance which is to be avoided as plague!!!

[rajraj]

'my children and your children and our children are playing together'.

Except that the number children has come down considerably in the US.

[AudazJay]

This is exactly the the trend I'm up in arms against: that all marriages are failures; all women are drowning in tears of marital woes; marriage is a shackle; women need to be emancipated from a desperate trap and so forth. The media and a host of 'liberationists' are crying hoarse for freedom for fettered women! They are shouting from every platform they can get on! Highly ridiculous and absurd to say all marriages are failures, all married women are just enduring their bondage without happiness; all households are battlefields making children grow up into perverts and misfits; warmth of the hearth is a myth etc etc. Atrocious falsehoods! Height of cynicism and pessimism. Happy families are not not exceptions, but unhappy marriages are. Do we cut our nose to spite our face? Do we do away with a wise system just because there are a few misadventures? The sensible thing will be to improve the system and not to abolish it.

With all due respect, PP maam, I beg to differ with you on this point. I don’t find it absurd or ridiculous to note the high amount of failed marriages or that most women are staying on with their marriage as a matter of vulnerability than of love and affection. To say otherwise is akin to living in a denial. I’m not saying that all marriages are failures, but sadly a high number of it happened to be. Of course, there are many reasons to quote for the failure of marriages; lack of love, compassion and respect to one another are some of the reasons but I strongly believe that women being independent have nothing to do with the predicament we face today.

That brings us to your next question…

What is independence? No responsibilities? No duties? No maternal cares? No cooking, no washing, no nappies, no night vigils, no mentor, no master- this is the lure the modern is falling in for! Huh! What an independence! No pain, no gain. Life is give and take.

Being independent has nothing to do with “discharging” a woman from her responsibility, duties, maternal care, etc. Being independent means to do all the above (cooking, washing, changing nappies, etc) simply because she wants to and not because she had to.

All through my life, I was taught to respect women. I was educated on women’s rights and liberties and I grew up watching women from my circle of life advocating and practicing those rights. What are those rights? Being able to speak up in the company of men, being able to stand firm on their two feet, being able to make their decisions on how to lead their life, choosing their career, their life partner etc. And it’s not surprising that I want my future wife to be exactly that. If I want to start a family with her, it’s only because both of us want to and not because we’re expected to do so. Would I be offended if she wants to go out and work? Or would I get mad if she doesn’t cook dinner for me? I wouldn’t. I said that with certainty because that’s how I was brought up. My mom is 60 years old and she still works in a private company. She doesn’t have to but she does it anyway because the job gives her a contentment that she doesn’t get by staying at home. There are times when she comes back home late, that my dad ends up cooking dinner for us. Does this make us loathe our mom? Do we feel that she’s grown so independent that she failed to fulfill her duty as a mother and a wife? Absolutely not. She’s still the mom we love and the love and respect that our parents have for one another stays true if not grown all these years. In fact, looking back at my family, I strongly believe that my future wife should be exactly that. Someone who can stand on her own feet, someone who stays in a marriage for love and because she wants to, rather than staying because she was being dominated by a so-called “master”.

And like you rightly point out, life is all about giving and taking and that applies to both men and women. But in reality, how many men out there really gives? They say that marriage is all about compromises, but why do we see only the women compromising in most things? How many women out there have become victims to domestic violence? And can you tell me for certain that dowry practices have ceased to be a factor for mental and physical violation against women today? How many more women have to become victims before we start to look upon women as a fellow human rather than a machine to cook, feed and clean? Things are changing, yes but if the changes are going to enable women to have a better platform to voice out their opinion, and the strength to stand up alongside men in all departments, then these changes are definitely welcomed.

Which brings us to the crux of this topic…Kushbu’s statement that men don’t expect their wife to be virgin. My question is, why does this statement attracts strong objections from the public? Because Kushbu seems to be enticing women to have pre-marital sex?
Would the same public object if her statement implicates that women do not expect their husbands to be virgin?

There are hues and cries about Supreme Court’s decision on this matter. The public felt that Supreme Court have given a wrong idea in the public’s mind by declaring that pre-marital sex is not a crime. To quote SP's words

Law cannot and should not intervene, it is INDIVIDUAL MAN AND WOMAN who is gonna decide about pre or post marital sex or who they are gonna live iwth or change partner etc. However declaring it openly AND PASSING IT as a judgement or verdict is bound to have its ... effect.

Now, my question is, how do we expect the court to declare it otherwise? The court’s duty is to give a verdict on the issues on hand. The petition filed in court was expressly to quash criminal proceedings against Kushboo who made an observation that premarital sex is no offense as living together is no offense.
Thus, the question which the court needs to address was whether she had committed a crime by making such observations. And I truly agree with the court when it states that there is no law which prohibits live-in relationship or pre-marital sex. Stating otherwise would mean that Kushbu’s observation is tantamount to a criminal act, which is not.

[pavalamani pragasam]

Very good, AudazJay! I admire your clairvoyance and calm approach. Let me also congratulate you for the luck of having an exceptional classic family. My regards to your parents. May your life be a replica of your parents'! You see, mine also happens to be a similar family of understanding, affectionate men and women except that our family's women-my 2 dils, daughter and myself) have not opted for career. All four of us are educated, intelligent and multiskilled. Our 4 men love to dabble in the kitchen. No fuss aboout women standing upon men all the time.

Well, how many families are like mine and yours? In the vast population, a janatha family should be our concern, how its members are affected, exclusive, elite families do not come under discussion of this sort. How many temptations do the ordinary young boys and girls meet todat, the obscenities in the media, the pub culture, the dating scope, above all the greed fed on by a glaringly consumeristic world? The bulk, the masses matter for a country's progress, prosperity. When they are tempted, enticed to become morally depraved a country loses heavily.

Khusboo had very bad things to say, generalise wantonly about Tamil Nadu's men and women which she had no right to do. Personal views, my foot! Falsehoods and arrogant allegations! With her 'might' she has come off unscathed. A shame it is the Supreme Court made such an obeisance to her lofty ideas about human morals! Going to the extent of citing mythology in support! Highly ridiculous state of affairs! Can we not speak with relevance to our present circumstances, the threats we face to dignified living? Lifestyles change but not certain basic values!

[Badri]

Much ado about nothing! but more surprised to see PP so involved!

Khusboo had very bad things to say, generalise wantonly about Tamil Nadu's men and women which she had no right to do. Personal views, my foot! Falsehoods and arrogant allegations!

Are you saying Mrs PP that this absolutely does not happen in Tamil Nadu? Or was Kushboo wrong to just call it out as she saw it?

Like it or not, the culture that was once India's is changing due to globalisation. There has to be a comfortable balance, not the extremism of culture policing!

With the world becoming smaller, with IT and other professions providing plenty of opportunities to travel, with Hollywood making inroads into every home, with obscene dance and song sequences in regional Indian cinema - what are we still crying about?

One woman speaking her mind? That is suddenly the big issue?

The Supreme Court verdict is going to change what exactly?

Those that do not want to do it, wont.
Those that anyway will do it, will continue!
Some extreme fanatics will take to the streets and burn effigies while busy Hubbers will increase the post count!

[Shakthiprabha]

podalangai, audaz,

The fact I probably failed to mention was , I aint too happy about the 'public behaviour n attitude' of takign such matter to the court, having known WELL THE PRESENT scenario and cult country has come to embrace.

Obviously court would say ppl have freedom of speech. Any law in any country is bound to bend and get flexible considering the present situation and majority of the people's mind set or / and living style. Court's verdict was but expected and then we make a hue and cry about the same.

Summa iruntha sangai oodhi kedutha ithu thaan aagum... Now that the verdict is openly out, consequences would follow.



I am out of this thread.